If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. ** If you are logged in, most ads will not be displayed. **

There was quite a charm about Windwos 95. The user interface was the first (and only) time Microsoft actually took their OS UI in an upward direction and made it better - perhaps because the Windwos 3.1 one was so utterly terrible. I just hated the random BSOD, which seemed often occurred when you were about to save your entire mornings work...

As a corporate monkey, I used MS Office from the late nineties to well past the middle of the last decade. I'd spent ten years learning it's quirks and working around its shortcomings, only for them to change it to this new ribbon bar and whole new world of pain and frustration. Don't think this is just a Microsoft phenomenon, though. I get just as much frustration from trying to use [Open|Libre]Office.

The downward spiral of the OS UI that leads from Windows Millenium to the grotesque hell of Windows 7 (which has something a bit like a user interface, but with all the useful stuff removed) is echoed with the increased pain and suffering as you move through to later versions of KDE, and with the newest Gnome.

They're not making these things 'better', they're just making them 'more'.

your pretty much saying that the technology world would be a better place without them.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by SL6-A1000

If they were not the ruthless businessman than we probably would still have all those smaller companies or it wouldn't be known as Microsoft or Apple but the end result would still have been similar.

What exactly would be wrong with still having those "smaller companies"? And... how exactly do you come to the conclusion that the result would be similar?

Originally Posted by SL6-A1000

It isn't that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs went up to these companies and said "i own your intellectual property and this company you are all expendable now and will be discredited for your work". Those smaller companies allowed Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Steve Jobs (Apple) to buy them out through a merger agreement; which is why they are known and why it wasn't a tyrant forcing oppression. They have been given credit for their work; the companies wouldn't have merged otherwise if no agreement was reached.

Nonsense... please tell me even one company Microsoft "merged" with. Searching the web will reveal hundreds of companies which MS acquired and which it has very sizeable stakes in. The companies MS acquired are mostly unheard of now, because they were for the most part asset stripped and closed. But if you believe takeovers/mergers/acquisitions don't result in closed business, lost jobs and less choice, it's you which is in fact taking a very "black and white" view here. Many of the acquisitions by MS have been anti-competitive ones - i.e. buying a rival out quite simply to put them out of business. MS is after all no stranger to "competition commissions" worldwide...

Originally Posted by SL6-A1000

That by no means says that they haven't done wrong, its stating the truth and a known fact.

What exactly would be wrong with still having those "smaller companies"? And... how exactly do you come to the conclusion that the result would be similar?

Nonsense... please tell me even one company Microsoft "merged" with. Searching the web will reveal hundreds of companies which MS acquired and which it has very sizeable stakes in. The companies MS acquired are mostly unheard of now, because they were for the most part asset stripped and closed. But if you believe takeovers/mergers/acquisitions don't result in closed business, lost jobs and less choice, it's you which is in fact taking a very "black and white" view here. Many of the acquisitions by MS have been anti-competitive ones - i.e. buying a rival out quite simply to put them out of business. MS is after all no stranger to "competition commissions" worldwide...

So you're stating the "facts"...

Whereas those who oppose your viewpoints are "demonising"...

I see...

I am not continuing this discussion with you caravel. When your able to respond without misconstruing my words to fit what you want them to mean, i will be happy to continue to discuss it with you.

Originally Posted by Roxoff

There was quite a charm about Windwos 95. The user interface was the first (and only) time Microsoft actually took their OS UI in an upward direction and made it better - perhaps because the Windwos 3.1 one was so utterly terrible. I just hated the random BSOD, which seemed often occurred when you were about to save your entire mornings work...

As a corporate monkey, I used MS Office from the late nineties to well past the middle of the last decade. I'd spent ten years learning it's quirks and working around its shortcomings, only for them to change it to this new ribbon bar and whole new world of pain and frustration. Don't think this is just a Microsoft phenomenon, though. I get just as much frustration from trying to use [Open|Libre]Office.

The downward spiral of the OS UI that leads from Windows Millenium to the grotesque hell of Windows 7 (which has something a bit like a user interface, but with all the useful stuff removed) is echoed with the increased pain and suffering as you move through to later versions of KDE, and with the newest Gnome.

They're not making these things 'better', they're just making them 'more'.

Yeah although, while the change of interfaces is annoying for those who used the earlier versions like Windows 95 or GNOME 2. I think the newer user who haven't experienced GNOME 2 or Windows 95 will wonder what the hell all the complaints are about. Which is why i don't think its going to change much, sure they might make it an option but i definitely don't think it will be the default. As it is all pitched towards the new and upcoming user not the old fart in the back office.

Its funny cause for some reason the opinion is more equals better (true in some cases).

I just joined am havnt even installed linux yet, but i can give you a bunch of reasons to hate windows. 1. Cost. a hunderd fricken bucks for an OEM!? 2. Lack of control. Want to move that taskbar? Hate the start menu? Too bad for you! 3. Outdatedness. With vista sucking i had to run xp up till 2009. Thats like 7 YEARS of the same OS! 4. Microsoft, overlord. Lets face it. The average user hasnt even heard of linux. For him he talks to ms support and if they screw him, brush him off, its not like he can just swich to a compeating company. Unless hes heard of linux or has a mac hes got no option. 5. Money makers. While i could care less if its a company, what gets me in a twist is that is all about money. Money frist, not comsumer. 6. Code bloat. I took a netbook that had asuss linux on it, put windows on it, and bang! Instint slug. 7. Nothing but adds. Preinstalled word? Buy the full version. Join ms mailing list and say i have xp, buy vista! Buy vista! Buy vista! 8. Rebooting each time you install a big piece of software. This one explans itself. 9. Boot up. 3 minuts to boot up!?!??!

The point being? It seemed to be asking why we didnt like windows. Thats why.

No, actually that's not the point I was trying to make when I started this thread. I was wondering why Windows users don't feel about Windows the way Linux users feel about Linux. Because I know a lot of ordinary Windows users and none of them is in love with Windows or really enthusiastic about it.

@caravel/SL6: Please, I had no intention of starting a flamefest. I hate those. If that's what this thread is becoming, perhaps it ought to be closed.